Letters to the Editor 01-26-2014

Sunday

Jan 26, 2014 at 5:57 AMJan 27, 2014 at 5:58 AM

Maintaining the status quo

Re: "Why change what works?" (Peter Allan, Letters, Jan. 24).

Mr. Allan said the process for hiring a permanent superintendent/president at VVC is tried and true. It is: It works to ensure the status quo. Perhaps he has not heard what the community (and the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges) has been telling him for months: The tried and true status quo is not working.

He also said that the screening committee does not select the new president. They do, however, select the candidates who will be seen by the Board of Trustees, and from whom they will make the final selection. The candidate chosen by the board will be only as good as the pool of candidates they have to choose from. Therefore, it is crucial that the trustees, not Peter Allan, choose the public members of the selection committee.

Mr. Allan says the screening committee verifies that the candidates meet the minimum standards for the position. They don't. That is part of the job of the recruiting firm that is being paid $26,000 by Victor Valley College to find qualified candidates.

The ACCJC has indicated that the lack of community participation in processes at VVC is unacceptable. Mr. Allan needs to let the trustees, the true representatives of the community, choose the members of the selection committee and stop hindering the community from supporting this valuable institution which is near and dear to us.

DeAnn HudgensVictorville

Debates and facts

Rick Benefield in his letter ("A climate debate," Jan. 24) asks for more debate on anthropological climate change. I would love to have a fact-based debate, but all I ever hear is about a scientific consensus on a theory covering the last 120 years, and no facts.

To prove his point about scientific consensus Mr. Benefield confuses the issue in an analogy about the causation between smoking and lung cancer. After millions of autopsies it can be confirmed there is factual evidence that there is damage done to the lungs from smoking. But in regards to anthropological climate change, science is only looking at one incident, not millions.

In an article regarding our current drought in the Daily Press on Jan. 20, Jet Propulsion Laboratory climatologist William Patzert said: "If you look at tree rings, these kinds of things have been happening for 1,500 years, we don't really understand why the (change) happens." One would think a scientist counting tree rings on a dead tree would be similar to examining tissue from a smokers lung. And historical records coincide with the tree ring evidence during this period that it was once warmer than presently. And would a scientist trying to find the facts ask in an open debate; why was it warmer, before it got cooler and now it is getting warmer again before man could have influenced climate? But wait, hasn't this cycle been going on for 4.5 billion years?

Once again, without name calling or slander, I ask the same question I have always asked: Why is this current warming trend any different than past warming cycles? Please give me a fact to debate with, not a theory with so little evidence.

Thomas WhittingtonApple Valley

•

I know Rick Benefield thinks he is saying something, but let me point out the difference between smoking and cancer, the geometric properties of Earth, and global warming: In the first, the correlation between smoking and lung cancer has been studied ad nauseam, and if Mr. Benefield likes, he can easily replicate those studies. That is the key to real science: The ability to predict the result of an experiment, and the ability of others to replicate your results.

Just find 100,000 Americans and 70 of them will have lung cancer. Thirty-four will be tobacco smokers. The other 36 will have been exposed to a variety of things that cause lung cancer, like aerosolized grease, asbestos, etc. Smoking is not the only cause, and in fact a slim majority of lung cancers have other causes. But it is by far the largest single substance correlated to lung cancer. And, again, dozens of scientists over a period of decades have done empirical studies and they all get roughly the same results. I predict with certainty that if Mr. Benefield conducts this experiment, he will get the same results all those other scientists have gotten, within a small margin of error.

As to whether the Earth is round or not, that is easily discernible by direct observation, another hallmark of real science. Along with its predictive function, real science provides explanations for observable phenomena.

Just go to the beach and watch a ship steaming away. At some point that ship will disappear. That can only happen if the Earth somehow gets between the observer and the ship. The only remaining explanation is that the Earth is, indeed, not flat. And no amount of consensus or non-consensus will change direct observation, or the shape of the Earth.

Global warming theory, however, is based mostly on computer models. Computer modeling can be useful, but the smaller the phenomenon being modeled, the more accurate the model is. The larger the phenomenon, the less accurate, because scientists have to make lots of assumptions, and decide what to leave in and what to leave out. To accurately model the entire universe would require a model as large as the universe. In order to accurately model the entire climate system of the Earth would require a model almost as large. There are just too many variables. In the case of climate science, models are of limited usefulness; some factors that influence climate are left out, and even some factors that are left in are not entirely understood or predictable.

When it comes to global warming, direct observation keeps contradicting the results of various models. When that happens a scientist of integrity prefers the result of direct observation over his pet theory, or his model. A brief period of warming ended 10 years ago, and measured temperatures around the globe have been steady since then.

It just doesn't matter what any percentage of people think or feel about climate change. There is a right answer and a wrong answer, just as there is regarding the shape of the Earth. The idea that "consensus" has any place in science is just bizarre.

David HolmanHesperia

•

The notion that deniers of climate change are anti-science is absurd. I for one have a very strong belief in science. And it is precisely because of my faith and belief in science that I cannot consider the global warming theory viable, at least not as long as it has a known and proven competitor that precedes the theory by eons.

Quite simply, a theory that duplicates what nature does, and has done, must first prove nature is not the cause, or doesn't exist. Can any of the global warming believers cite any scientific proof that nature isn't the cause? If anyone can, I'd sure like to hear it.

And if anyone can provide me with verifiable proof, I hereby "promise" to change my affiliation from denier to that of a true believer. I won't be holding my breath, though.

Darrel HagenVictorville

Term of endearment

In one fast swoop the Daily Press insulted all mothers in the world with its headlines of Jan. 15, "Mom facing 17 years."

To call this female "Mom" is totally beyond comprehension. Mothers who have dedicated their lives to raising children, working outside the home, and sacrificing life's little luxuries are lumped into a category with this female?

Using the term 'Mom" is even worse. When we use the word it's a term of endearment, a nickname of sorts that adds a whisper of warmth when spoken. It also gives us an option of using the more formal word "Mother" when we are in disagreement and want to make a point.

George KroepilApple Valley

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.